Monthly Archives: January 2008

Mr. Ortiz said the family’s ordeal began Oct. 19, when his son picked up a bottle of hand sanitizer from the desk of his fifth-period reading teacher at Killian Middle School in Lewisville. He rubbed the gel on his hands and smelled it.

In the view of school officials, the boy “inhaled heavily,” according to Mr. Ortiz, who said his son sniffed the cleanser “because it smelled good.”

The youth was sent to the principal’s office, and the Lewisville police officer assigned to the school began investigating. […]

The teen was required to serve a brief in-school suspension and was also fingerprinted and photographed at the Lewisville Police Department. He returned to regular classes at the school, including one with the teacher whose sanitizer he sniffed.

Mr. Ortiz said he believed the matter was over until Tuesday when he was served with a petition charging his son with delinquency for inhaling the hand sanitizer to “induce a condition of intoxication, hallucination and elation.”

Killer, oh Killer — on which side of this cookie will you crumble? I have to assume that since this happened at a school, the kid is automatically guilty…

[full story] [full disclosure: I also “inhale heavily”; in this context anyhow… title lifted from source]

he also doesn’t come across as a fun guy; I almost felt bad for the woman who was questioning him, until I remembered that she was trying to deprive him of his basic rights to free speech/press under the guise of a “Human Rights Commission”.

If you don’t pay attention, you might not even realize that freedoms are being eroded. I had half-expected a combative, missionary-style interrogator. I found, instead, a limp clerk who was just punching the clock. She had done it dozens of times before, and will do it dozens of times again. In a way, that’s more terrifying.

word.

[updated YouTube link; but the other one was funny too.]
[updated: I also forgot to mention it initially, but this is happening in Alberta (Canada)]

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think we all know that, we lived through it, didn’t we, and it’s something that was very painful and very hurtful [1].

MR. RUSSERT: What did you learn from it?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, first of all, it is who I am as a person. I believe that you have to withstand whatever problems come your way. You have to make the decisions that are best for you. You’re going to get a lot of advice coming from many different quarters to do things that don’t feel right to you, that don’t reflect who you are and what your values are. So you have to be grounded in who you are and what you believe. And you’re not always going to make the right decisions, but you have to be guided by what you think is important, and that’s what I’ve done.

So she didn’t answer either question. I thought she answered the first (Monica-gate), but if that was so painful and hurtful then why wouldn’t it be Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones? Why would any one of those betrayals be a greater public adversity than the other?

Maybe because of that whole impeachment thing. But she only stated that it was “very painful and very hurtful”; she didn’t say who she felt hurt by — her husband, or the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Neither answer makes me very comfortable; if its the former, then why wouldn’t she leave him or put him in his place? If it’s the latter, then she’s ignoring the actions of her husband and is just mad at his enemies. And her whole second answer is a non-answer if I ever heard/read one.

I know, I know; it doesn’t matter what she says, I’m going to oppose it and probably get really angry in the process. But I’m not all wrong, am I?

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, many people opted for those cheaper mortgages. They could’ve had a fixed mortgage at a higher rate, but they opted for a cheaper one. Should they not bear some responsibility?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, Tim, I think all of us should[1]. But I’d say three things about that. The bankers, the mortgage lenders, the brokers, all bear a lot of the responsibility, because many of the practices that were followed were just downright predatory and fraudulent. There is no doubt about that[2]. I started talking about this last March. A lot of people got into subprime loans who frankly could’ve been in a conventional fixed-rate loan. They were basically told that this was a better opportunity for them. Should they take responsibility? Yes, but[3] look at what will happen if we continue this cascade of foreclosures. Housing values are down. They’re down 6 percent[4]. That’s over $1.3 trillion in housing values in the last year. So everybody bears some responsibility[5].

[1] I, for one, bear no responsibility for any part of the subprime mortgage crisis, and I call shenanigans on Hillary Clinton for implying that I do. If anyone can prove otherwise, have at it.

[2] I think there is plenty of doubt in her claim that practices were predatory and fraudulent; sure, some may have been predatory, and some fraudulent, but I doubt that many were both. If they were fraudulent, borrowers should have no problem demonstrating as much and get back their losses plus damages.

[3] this “yes, but” clause is mixing issues; the state of nationwide housing values has no bearing on personal responsibility. Should I stop paying my car loan because the price of gas is over $3? Right.

[4] housing was a bubble anyhow, and the dramatic drops are more a function of that bubble than of 0.3% of houses being foreclosed (not that the foreclosures help the situation).

[5] Again, I refute this claim on it’s face, and object to any responsibility that Hillary is trying to project on me or my family. It doesn’t take a village to screw up a home loan.

I basically fell asleep every time Hillary spoke, but when she started yelling at Tim Russert I sat up and took notice. She bowled over his question and refused to let him finish, and then sat there with this self-satisfied look that made my stomach turn. I wish I could screen-capture my TV to show you; (can Tivo do that?)

Tim, who usually holds his own against whoever is on the other side of his table*, looked like he was cowering as he read his follow up questions.

It wasn’t becoming. “I’m smarter than you Tim Russert. I can talk circles around you. You can’t even begin to know what I’m capable of. I will eat you alive, but first I will feed your children to you, and you’ll enjoy it.” OK, that was creepy. But I swear, that’s what the look on her face is saying right now (yes, I’ve had the Tivo on pause while I’ve been composing this. Seemed like the thing to do, since after she is elected she will become the face of Big Brother, and we’ll all have her watching over us, all the time.)

Name Your Fear? I fear Hillary Clinton.

* he holds his own when he wants to; but I’ll admit that he panders and throws big old softball questions to just as many (and I hate that).

the idea that the United States, the world’s single largest energy consumer, can be independent of the $5 trillion-per-year energy business — the world’s single biggest industry — is ludicrous on its face. The push for energy independence is based on a series of false premises.

They identified five myths about energy independence:

Energy independence will reduce or eliminate terrorism.

A big push for alternative fuels will break our oil addiction.

Energy independence will let America choke off the flow of money to nasty countries.

Energy independence will mean reform in the Muslim world.

Energy independence will mean a more secure U.S. energy supply.

And the said the same thing I always say:

Remember, the two largest suppliers of crude to the U.S. market are Canada and Mexico